John 13 is largely centered around the interactions between Jesus, Peter, and Judas. There is a lot going on in this chapter that merits spending some time unpacking its implications for what is to follow. What we see is Jesus preparing those closest to him for what is to occur; his sacrifice on the cross as the Lamb of God.
John 13 is a mirror image of John 12 with the important difference that it is Jesus who is preparing (initiating) his disciples for (into) the most intimate relationship with God, his sacrifice. In the synoptic gospels this is spelled out as the Last Supper, but in John this is referenced as a meal just before the Passover, just before Jesus is crucified as the sacrificial Lamb of God. For John, the true Passover meal is played out on Good Friday, when Jesus is literally broken and poured out as the bread and wine of salvation. What the reader is presented in John 13 is the beginning of a conversation that explains the meaning of a new Passover.
John 13 mirrors what occurred in John 12 where Mary anoints Jesus's feet with Nard in preparation of Jesus's sacrifice, death, and burial as the blameless, spotless Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world. In John 12, Jesus informs "the Jews" (meaning Judaic Jews) that he will die in order to glorify God's name and from this act a new creation will emerge, a new kingdom of believers who will have eternal life (the rest condemned by their unbelief).
In John 13, Jesus informs his disciples that not only will he be killed, but that he will also be betrayed by one of them, that through all of this he will be glorified, and that one of them will deny him in his hour of need. The context of John 13 through John 17 is this pre-Passover meal. The communal nature of a meal can be lost on a modern reader, where meals are not the family or social events they once were. It is important that this is not lost on the reader of John where a Middle-eastern meal of the type being described was not only a communal event, but an intimate event where food was shared from common utensils, bowls and cups. It is in the communal context of this meal that John has Jesus explaining the meaning of Holy Communion. For John, the institution of Holy Communion is not the words spoken by Jesus in the other gospels, but rather the in the act of being sacrificed.
John 13 mirrors what occurred in John 12 where Mary anoints Jesus's feet with Nard in preparation of Jesus's sacrifice, death, and burial as the blameless, spotless Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world. In John 12, Jesus informs "the Jews" (meaning Judaic Jews) that he will die in order to glorify God's name and from this act a new creation will emerge, a new kingdom of believers who will have eternal life (the rest condemned by their unbelief).
In John 13, Jesus informs his disciples that not only will he be killed, but that he will also be betrayed by one of them, that through all of this he will be glorified, and that one of them will deny him in his hour of need. The context of John 13 through John 17 is this pre-Passover meal. The communal nature of a meal can be lost on a modern reader, where meals are not the family or social events they once were. It is important that this is not lost on the reader of John where a Middle-eastern meal of the type being described was not only a communal event, but an intimate event where food was shared from common utensils, bowls and cups. It is in the communal context of this meal that John has Jesus explaining the meaning of Holy Communion. For John, the institution of Holy Communion is not the words spoken by Jesus in the other gospels, but rather the in the act of being sacrificed.
GETTING INTIMATE
At first, Jesus's disciples are appalled that he was washing their feet. According to John, they were not use to seeing Jesus act this way. This was a whole new side of Jesus for them. John has Peter, the nominal head of the early church, question Jesus's motives for washing the disciples' feet. Peter's questions become a form of catechesis with Jesus providing the required answer. It is reminiscent of the questions asked during the Feast of the Passover.
Why would we do this?
What does it mean?
When Peter resists Jesus doing the menial task of a servant or slave, Jesus responds that if he doesn't wash him, Peter will have not part of him. This is code for one's baptismal entrance into grace. Just like Mary who, in chapter 12, became one with Jesus when drying his feet with her hair, Jesus's disciples enter into an intimate relationship with Jesus by being washed by him, literally baptized by him from the feet up. The foot washing story only occurs in John.
When Peter asks Jesus to wash his whole body, Jesus reminds Peter that his feet are sufficient to cleanse the whole body. The bathing of one's feet in both John 12 and John 13 contain the message about walking on a new path or in a new way. It is the feet that carries one into the life and, in this case, into new life. To this day, most Christian denominations insist that before receiving Holy Communion, an individual has to be baptized, ritually washed before eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.
BETRAYAL
It is paradoxical, if not ironic, that in the discussion of Jesus's betrayal, the rite of Holy Communion is contextualized and explained. This is true of all the gospel accounts of the Last Supper and the writers of John are reliant that their readers are familiar with those accounts. But John takes a very unique approach to this and adds a theological twist to the story by introducing for the first time in the New Testament accounts of Jesus's betrayal two divine characters, the devil and Satan. We don't often think of the divine nature of evil characters in scripture, but the ancient Hebrew scriptures give divine status to Satan and by extension any minions he might have had.
The devil and Satan are not mentioned in any of the synoptic gospels as playing a direct role in Judas's betrayal of Jesus. It is implied in Luke, particularly when it comes to Peter's upcoming denial. That the devil and Satan are mentioned in John deserves attention. Some may question why I am talking about the devil and Satan as two separate entities. Simply because in John we have two distinct terms being used, διάβολος and Σατανας in the same story. Most treat them as interchangeable terms, but I would caution against doing so.
In John 13 they appear treated differently and, as always, it is best to pay attention to such details in John. One could say that they point to two different versions of the story being combined or that the devil is presented more as a figurative character or mental flaw in Judas who was prone to temptation and overthinking situations; that the devil or devils that plagued Judas's thought process put it into Judas's heart to betray Jesus and opened the door to allow Satan, as the acting agent, to enter his being.
Satan is an interesting biblical character, and I am suggesting that since John is addressing a Jewish audience that we view the character of Satan not as the demonic ruler of the Dante's Inferno, but rather as the adversarial character in the Book of Job, the one who accuses God of tipping the scales and showing favoritism to certain humans. If you recall, Satan has access to the courts of Heaven in Job. Satan is divine.
The question becomes why John thought it necessary to include these characters into the story?
The answer, I believe lies in the portrayal of Jesus as no mere mortal or a demi-god.
Jesus is God - enfleshed.
I would also add, that in John it would be wrong to assume that Jesus was considered fully human. Jesus, according to John, exists before creation as the Word of God; before there were human beings. Although John refers to Jesus as the Son of Man several times, the treatment of Jesus throughout John is, at best, that of a quasi human, as the Son of Man descended from Heaven [John 3:13] for the sole purpose of being the Lamb of God who takes upon himself the flesh of human kind, making it spotless by virtue of his divinity and thus sacrifices it to make the perfect atonement for the sins of the world. There are any number of ancient heresies that taught this view of Jesus's nature, but they were squelched after the council of Nicea.
Avoiding the orthodox view of this for moment, John depicts that in order for Jesus to become the divine sacrifice that atones for the sins of the world required a divine agent to carry out the deed, and this divine agent is Satan. No mere mortal can do the deed. What John also points out, and which is consistent with the ancient Hebrew understanding of Satan, is that Satan cannot go where Satan is not invited. In fact, when the devil (plaguing Judas's thought process) convinces Judas to betray Jesus, the door to Judas's heart is open to receive Satan, but that, in itself, is not enough to cause Judas to betray Jesus. Satan does not enter Judas until Jesus dips his bread and hands it to Judas. It is the sign that Jesus gives to permit Satan to enter Judas. In fact, Jesus, himself, orders the Satan-possessed Judas to do what he has to do quickly and Judas goes out and betrays Jesus to the chief priests.
The Gospel of John, in many ways, is a theological reflection on the Gospel of Luke. The devil appears as a character in Luke during Jesus's temptation in the wilderness. According to Luke, after Jesus's temptation (which is not part of John's account) the devil waits for "an opportune time." John defines the opportune time as occurring during this pre-Passover meal. Luke also has Judas betraying Jesus before the Passover meal and Jesus instituting the rite of Holy Communion.
Throughout all of this John is careful to avoid linking the act of Jesus and Judas dipping in the common serving bowel (reflecting the accounts of this act in Matthew and Mark) as occurring during the Eucharistic meal. In this sense, John avoids the thorny issue of having Judas share in the deepest ritual of being one with God in Christ. John makes sure the reader understands that Judas was absent before Jesus explains the meaning of Holy Communion. It is interesting to note that Jesus washed Judas's feet along with the other disciples, but it becomes clear that his feet was to set on a more treacherous path in order to fulfill God's will.
DENIAL
The devil and Satan are not mentioned in any of the synoptic gospels as playing a direct role in Judas's betrayal of Jesus. It is implied in Luke, particularly when it comes to Peter's upcoming denial. That the devil and Satan are mentioned in John deserves attention. Some may question why I am talking about the devil and Satan as two separate entities. Simply because in John we have two distinct terms being used, διάβολος and Σατανας in the same story. Most treat them as interchangeable terms, but I would caution against doing so.
In John 13 they appear treated differently and, as always, it is best to pay attention to such details in John. One could say that they point to two different versions of the story being combined or that the devil is presented more as a figurative character or mental flaw in Judas who was prone to temptation and overthinking situations; that the devil or devils that plagued Judas's thought process put it into Judas's heart to betray Jesus and opened the door to allow Satan, as the acting agent, to enter his being.
Satan is an interesting biblical character, and I am suggesting that since John is addressing a Jewish audience that we view the character of Satan not as the demonic ruler of the Dante's Inferno, but rather as the adversarial character in the Book of Job, the one who accuses God of tipping the scales and showing favoritism to certain humans. If you recall, Satan has access to the courts of Heaven in Job. Satan is divine.
The question becomes why John thought it necessary to include these characters into the story?
The answer, I believe lies in the portrayal of Jesus as no mere mortal or a demi-god.
Jesus is God - enfleshed.
I would also add, that in John it would be wrong to assume that Jesus was considered fully human. Jesus, according to John, exists before creation as the Word of God; before there were human beings. Although John refers to Jesus as the Son of Man several times, the treatment of Jesus throughout John is, at best, that of a quasi human, as the Son of Man descended from Heaven [John 3:13] for the sole purpose of being the Lamb of God who takes upon himself the flesh of human kind, making it spotless by virtue of his divinity and thus sacrifices it to make the perfect atonement for the sins of the world. There are any number of ancient heresies that taught this view of Jesus's nature, but they were squelched after the council of Nicea.
Avoiding the orthodox view of this for moment, John depicts that in order for Jesus to become the divine sacrifice that atones for the sins of the world required a divine agent to carry out the deed, and this divine agent is Satan. No mere mortal can do the deed. What John also points out, and which is consistent with the ancient Hebrew understanding of Satan, is that Satan cannot go where Satan is not invited. In fact, when the devil (plaguing Judas's thought process) convinces Judas to betray Jesus, the door to Judas's heart is open to receive Satan, but that, in itself, is not enough to cause Judas to betray Jesus. Satan does not enter Judas until Jesus dips his bread and hands it to Judas. It is the sign that Jesus gives to permit Satan to enter Judas. In fact, Jesus, himself, orders the Satan-possessed Judas to do what he has to do quickly and Judas goes out and betrays Jesus to the chief priests.
The Gospel of John, in many ways, is a theological reflection on the Gospel of Luke. The devil appears as a character in Luke during Jesus's temptation in the wilderness. According to Luke, after Jesus's temptation (which is not part of John's account) the devil waits for "an opportune time." John defines the opportune time as occurring during this pre-Passover meal. Luke also has Judas betraying Jesus before the Passover meal and Jesus instituting the rite of Holy Communion.
Throughout all of this John is careful to avoid linking the act of Jesus and Judas dipping in the common serving bowel (reflecting the accounts of this act in Matthew and Mark) as occurring during the Eucharistic meal. In this sense, John avoids the thorny issue of having Judas share in the deepest ritual of being one with God in Christ. John makes sure the reader understands that Judas was absent before Jesus explains the meaning of Holy Communion. It is interesting to note that Jesus washed Judas's feet along with the other disciples, but it becomes clear that his feet was to set on a more treacherous path in order to fulfill God's will.
DENIAL
Peter's is a different story. Peter is portrayed throughout the gospels as the pure heart of the group. Peter's mind is not plagued by demons. Peter does not over think things. If Peter has a fault, it is that he doesn't think things through and John picks up on this facet of Peter's persona. As we have already seen, Peter rushes to conclusions and is passionately opinionated, but he doesn't grasp or possess an innate appreciation for subtle meanings. In this sense, Peter represents the initiate who possesses an innate passionate heart that requires experiential direction.
All of the New Testament gospel accounts contain the story of Peter's denial. While Peter hears what Jesus is saying about being betrayed and that his disciples cannot go where he is going, which Peter somewhat wrongfully interprets as Jesus talking about his death, Peter isn't getting the whole message. In John, Peter questions Jesus why he can't go where Jesus goes and states that he would follow Jesus even if it means his own death. It is then Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Jesus three times before a cock crows.
Again, John appears to be referencing Luke's gospel account in Luke 22, which offers us insight into the scenario John is talking about. Luke places Peter's denial within the context of Jesus telling his disciples to serve one another. At the end of that short monologue, as if out of the blue, Luke has Jesus saying:
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."
And he (Peter) said unto him, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death"
And he (Jesus) said, "I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shat thrice deny that thou knowest me"
Luke 22: 31 - 34 KJV
What Luke, combined with John's account, clearly points out that Judas and Peter have something in common, Satan's desire for both.
Why?
There are similarities, traits that both of these disciples share. They are cut from the same passionate fabric. Judas and Peter are so passionate about what they want to see in Jesus, that they fail to see what Jesus is about. Both want Jesus to be a messiah that will lead Judea out from under Roman rule and who will reunite Israel and reclaim its former glory.
They are zealous, but as I have mentioned above, they also have a major difference - their thought processes are different - Judas thinks and Peter doesn't. In Luke, Peter is more or less described as a tabla rasa, an empty slate, something that can be shaped or as Luke says, can be converted. The only thing that prevents Peter from becoming a betrayer, himself, is Jesus's prayerful intervention. Once again, we see that Satan cannot go where he is prohibited from going.
In John 13, the writer has the same scenario placed in the context of Jesus telling his disciples that they should love one another as he has loved them; that this is the way the world will know that they are Jesus's disciples.
What Luke tells us about Satan's role in Peter's situation is not mentioned specifically in John. Rather there is a monologue by Jesus that touches upon the same subject of Jesus having a say in what will occur:
"Verily , verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord, neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him
If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
John 13: 16 - 18 KJV
John takes a slightly different approach to both Judas's and Peter's situation. While John tends to reflect or play off of Luke's account, John makes it clear that where Judas and Peter are concerned, the choice between who betrays and who is saved is Jesus's choice - "I know whom I have chosen." It's unclear what Jesus actually means by this, but it is clear that Jesus makes two decisions, who will betray him and who will deny him.
* * * * * * * * * *
John 13, raises difficult issues for Christians. Why was Judas chosen to fail and be condemned when Peter's failing merely becomes a teachable moment? Where is the justice in that? We don't give them much consideration because we are largely indoctrinated to gloss over them in the light of salvation theology.
Both the story of Judas and Peter in the New Testament gospels depict God as capricious and Machiavellian; that God acts unreasonably whimsical at times and that God's ends justify God's means. We are all taught, especially in New Testament theology, not to question God's motives; that belief in God is more important than trying to reason God's motives. This is particularly true in Johannine theology and it remains highly influential amongst Christians.
Of course, one can find other ways to look at these stories; such as, out of chaos good evolves, but that is an exercise of glossing over what is being said. The reality of John is that Jesus is depicted as being far above the fray; that he only comes down to our level to save a remnant of the old creation in order to start a new creative order of chosen people from amongst the nations. This made all sorts of divine logic at the time John was written - You don't question the gods or God and the gods or God are just by virtue of being divine and so on.
The difficulty is that such a deterministic theology underwrites a contemporary theology that implies that evil can be carried out for good purposes; that humans can justifiably throw away other human beings because it ultimately serves God's higher plan. Although none of us know what God is thinking or know what God's plan is, we think we do because we have scriptures that tell us God has one.
Does God have a plan?
I find it interesting that the teachings of Jesus, the one's I think he most likely gave (his parables and some of his monologues, like the Sermon on the Mount) are generally void of Jesus trying to read God's mind. The best he gets at this is telling us to consider the lilies of the field and birds of the air. In some gospel accounts he blatantly tells his followers he has no clue what God's time table is for certain things to take place or who is going to sit at his right or left hand when he comes into his kingdom or what God's ultimate goal is but rather he encourages his followers to seek the goodness that he attributed to God's fatherly love for everyone.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment